Dems can’t agree on taxes:
What began as a plan to jolt Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell with a gesture of Democratic solidarity over tax policy dissolved into a political burlesque.
[...]
House Democrats then refused to take up the Senate plan, instead voting at 8:45 p.m. to pass their own nearly identical measure, 90-58.
[...]
Williams said the Senate would pass and send to the governor the House version of the tax package, which included a cut in the gasoline tax not included in the Senate bill.“That would be a great dynamite charge for the negotiations to get things moving and to get a package we can agree on,” Williams said. (Keating)
The difference between the House and Senate bills is the summer gas tax cut–which the House passed (apparently, the Senate didn’t). I thought that was some sort of half-baked scheme? Jim Amann was saying that just the other day. I wonder what changed his mind?
So much for the supermajority. The tax package did not pass with veto-proof majorities in either house. Republicans stood together against the bill, while a significant number of Democrats crossed the line.
Source
Pazniokas, Mark and Christopher Keating. “House, Senate Dems Can’t Agree On Tax Plans.” Hartford Courant 30 May, 2007.
61 responses so far ↓
Shocking!
The Supermajority Supermen of Amann and Williams can’t even get a lousy tax package through their own chambers. Is this leadership?!
Usually by this time, we’re seeing crappy budgets sailing through, while everyone knows the Gov will veto them. Then they all get serious and put together some kind of compromise.
These guys have known they have the numbers to put through literally ANYTHING they want since they lowered the gavel in January. There’s now less than a week to go and they have:
No budget
No healthcare initiatives
No energy relief
Makes one pine for the days of Moira & Kevin.
[quote comment="10729"] The Supermajority Supermen of Amann and Williams can’t even get a lousy tax package through their own chambers. [/quote]
with the votes to override a veto of course….
It sure does feel good to affiliate with the party that listens to the People – CT Grand Old Party.
Many Democrats begin to realize the Dynamite ‘n Crush adverse effect of their own (leaders) immature arrogance.
We always appreciate People’s common sense – across the board.
Respectfully,
Bo ItsHaky
The Dems do look like they are staggering a bit at the moment, whether or not that is a part of their grand strategy remains to be seen. This has all the makings of a special session. I wish they would just get down to doing the work they were sent to Hartford for and stop with all the political posturing.
Is anyone surprised by this though? Fairfield County Dems have been unhappy with the plan all along. They’ve been pretty vocal about it, even with increasing the income level affected by the raise.
Can someone well versed in the General Assembly website please post links to the “roll call”? I, for one, would love to see how my rep voted! Thanks.
Probably won’t be up until tomorrow… but I’ll take a look.
Genghis–
The “Democratic United Front”? What are you referring to? The Dems have never been united, not even on Plan B.
The budget was always going to be a free-for-all. I’m surprised you’re surprised…
Dems were almost entirely united on Plan B, when it came down to it.
Keep an eye on this bill tomorrow for the roll call. It should be up during the morning, I’ll bet.
how are the republicans going to defend voting against the gas tax holiday and giving tax cuts to the middle class?
TrueBlue, the Democrats were excited about having a veto-proof supermajority, right?
[quote comment="10748"]how are the republicans going to defend voting against the gas tax holiday and giving tax cuts to the middle class?[/quote]
Mua ha ha ha ha!
You liberals truly do believe the average person is borderline retarded. You actually think that Republicans are going to be held to task for voting against that sham budget because after two weeks of slamming the gas tax holiday, saying it supported terrorism, they finally included it in their package?
Are you saying that you were for this gas tax holiday all along?
Instead you should ask yourself how Democrats will defend having voted against it as an amendment repeatedly, and saying it supported terrorism. You should ask yourself how the Dems will defend raising taxes on funeral expenses.
You should ask yourself how the Dems will defend themselves after having voted to eliminate the exemption from the sales tax on clothing under $50, and eliminating the sales tax holiday for back-to-school season.
What tax cut for the middle class? What they give on the income tax, they take away with sales and service taxes. Or do you expect us all to be so stupid as to believe that they are raising $2 billion more in taxes by giving us a tax cut?
Dumb without reprieve.
[quote comment="10751"]Instead you should ask yourself how Democrats will defend having voted against it as an amendment repeatedly, and saying it supported terrorism.[/quote]
There was never a vote taken on it prior to this. This was the first time the House voted on it, and last night was the first time the Senate voted on it. They never voted against it.
[quote comment="10751"]What tax cut for the middle class? What they give on the income tax, they take away with sales and service taxes. Or do you expect us all to be so stupid as to believe that they are raising $2 billion more in taxes by giving us a tax cut?
Dumb without reprieve.[/quote]
The average person will get a few hundred dollars more in income tax cuts, and the property tax credit will be raised to $1,000 from the current rate of $500.
Are you telling me the average person plans on buying thousands of t-shirts this year and as a result those tax breaks will completely disappear? No. That’s simply just not true.
This tax package creates a fair, progressive system.
It’s a moot point–Rell will almost certainly veto the bill. Dems don’t have the votes to override.
So it results in two days of a giant waste of time and taxpayer dollars. Boy, Dems are good at that.
Quotes by Rep. Drew of Fairfield in Stamford Advocate had him questioning levels of spending as much as the taxes, CCG.
I have been beating this drum throughout 10.4% increases are not sustainable for our government no matter what the taxes are. The Dems just don’t get it.
on another note What is Kim Fawcett thinking?
>>There was never a vote taken on it prior to this. This was the first time the House voted on it, and last night was the first time the Senate voted on it. They never voted against it.
Read a paper. They voted against it in the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee on party lines, 31-14. Then they voted against it in the House on a GOP amendment yesterday that also struck your precious tax increases.
There is nothing progressive about a tax increase on clothes under $50. Nor is there anything progressive about a funeral tax, an estate tax, a cigarette tax, or making the real estate conveyance tax permanent.
And GC makes a good point. It is moot. Rell will veto this trash.
Could there be any more inept leadership in Connecticut? Amman, Williams and Rell.
G-Bury… also a good point. The last time we had a tax increase of this magnitude was in the late 1980’s, when we were in fiscal trouble, and prior to the enactment of the income tax.
What a train wreck!
Do you suppose there’s any chance the rank and file will tell Jimmy and Donny to finally stop playing games and get serious now? Or do they really want to spend the bulk of June tapping their feet and whistling while those two clods embarass themselves a little more?
By the way Kabong…
Nothing will ever make me pine for the days of Moira, or those chardonnay-fueled crying jags she used to treat us to. The first woman speaker in Connecticut history, and she was up there with her mascara running down her cheeks embarrassing us all.
RedFive-
Don’t forget Amann’s promise from the December 21, 2006 New Haven Register:
ONly legislative Democrats have a long term solutions! It’s called ‘Energize Connecticut’! You will see it in January of 2007, right after the start of session.
Uhh.. OOPS! What time is it? It’s June O’Clock already?
LOL … Jimmy has a little problem with deadlines, as anyone waiting for his covering-all-the-kids-with-HUSKY plan found out in January and February and March and March again and April and … and then he quit talking about it.
Theeble, RE. your post #13,
I really think another way to define a progressive tax ( in CT anyway) is that someone else pays, not me…..
I think the idea of a progressive tax system really should be a secondary concern. Adding over 10% to our budgetary spending should be a far greater concern to all of us right now. You simply cannot keep this sort of government growth, and waste, going on year after year and get away with it, progressive tax or not.
Having said that I find it very hard to defend any budget, tax cut, tax increase, from anyone, from either party, unless there is some way our hugely under funded pension and retiree benefits liabilities are accounted for, and a reasonable solution found to address them included in that budget.
If to address that huge problem was the reason Amann ,Williams, and the Democrats want to push a progressive tax I would 100% support that tax. If it’s just so Amann and Williams can raise more money to waste without addressing those concerns then I am 100% against that tax. Lets pay some of our bills before we waste more money.
I think it says a lot about the Democrat philosophical ideals that they couldn’t get any of the Stamford Reps or Senators to vote for their tax package, in addition to a decent number of the remaining reps from Fairfield County and relatively affluent parts of the state. The general attitude amongst the majority is one of disdain towards anyone that is fairly successful financially. With an ever increasing socialistic approach to governing, they are draining this state of every ounce of appeal for its citizens. The Democratic leadership is out of touch with the vast majority of the taxpayers. Socialism doesn’t work. The government cannot effectively and efficiently care for everyone. Our state financial resources are finite. These are indisputable facts, and the majority party has completely disregarded them. When I look down the road, as a single man in his mid 20’s, I realize that I cannot afford to live in my home state for much longer. 10 years from now, I will most likely be living elsewhere. Not out of any personal preference, but out of financial necessity. That’s a sad statement to make, but quite frankly it has become a typical statement heard. Either the majority learns to spend within the means available, or our state will become the prime example of what not to do when developing a budget.
G-Bury, thats a great question…what was Kim Fawcett thinking??? And any other Fairfield County legislator outside of Bridgeport…oh ya, thats right, Fawcett is Bridgeport’s other Rep…I almost forgot about her little press conference pushing for more funding for Bridgeport and pretty much regionalizing government. So I guess she was just following through with her promise to “fight for Bridgeport”. Must’ve been tough for her to completely ignore the fact that the two towns that ELECTED her, Westport and Fairfield, get absolutely screwed in the D’s tax package. WHY DID THEY ELECT HER???
Yesterday was just another example of the inability of the Dems to do anything right. There own people saw how bad this tax package was and voted against it. They have been touting how their tax plan is great for everyone, then why did 14 of there people not vote for the plan. These 14 People Represent about 300,000 people in the State. Why did these Reps believe that it wasnt good enough for their constituents?
When I think about it my thought all go back to the same thing. We have a 1 billion dollar surplus, just leave me and my money alone.
theeble #13
What about last week when Jimmy was calling this plan half-baked and remember two opportunities last week the House could to taken this plan up and voted for it, however first attempt by the House Republicans ended up in having a bill pass temporarily that still has not be recalled (very rare in the House) and the second attempt on an amendment it was ruled not germane by the Chair (no big surprise) however the ruling of the chair was appealed and there was a vote to over rule the Chair to simply allow a debate and a vote, but that was shot down on a roll call vote on mainly party lines.
The simple fact is this proposal was made to start on Memorial Day to finally give residents some relief they can actually see at the gas pump but last week all we heard was how horrible this plan was and there would never be a debate on it. How quickly that changed but this time attached to a ridiculous tax package that is insulting to EVERYONE in Connecticut and not to mention we have not even seen the spending package yet that is without a doubt to be just as insulting.
This was pure politics to get the House Republicans to vote against something that they started the debate on, unfortunately had the Democrats really wanted this gas tax we would already be seeing the 25-cent reduction, unfortunately sad to say we probably never will, all the Democrats are worried about is making themselves look good and not looking for the interests of us all in Connecticut, the only fortunate thing of all of this is they are not fooling a single person in this state.
There is no budget surplus, Bullhook, just an estimated revenue surplus, becasue the state doesn’t pay its bills and fulfill it’s obligations. JUst last year the GOP was talking about a Constitutional Ammendment to fully fund the techers pension – note they don’t even talk about that anymore. It amzes me that people rail against democracy in action.
[quote comment="10798"]There is no budget surplus, Bullhook, just an estimated revenue surplus,[/quote]
Right – because I’m sure the Dems will find a way to spend it all to prop up their voter base in time for the next election.
[quote post="577"]WHY DID THEY ELECT HER??? [/quote]
Becuase her incumbent opponenet, Cathy Tymniak, sat around on her ass instead of comapaigning for re-election
archie, stay in denial and spin; it suits you.
[quote comment="10802"]archie, stay in denial and spin; it suits you.[/quote]
There you go again, avoid and attack.
[quote comment="10801"][quote post="577"]WHY DID THEY ELECT HER??? [/quote]
Becuase her incumbent opponenet, Cathy Tymniak, sat around on her ass instead of comapaigning for re-election[/quote]
Very true…it was somewhat of a rhetorical question, but never the less, very true. I guess its a valuable lesson against getting too comfortable
JSU; I just hope that the local GOP puts somebody up who can beat her next time around – and that person won’t win on the Cafero/Healy/Rowe/Boucher/Freedman platform.
Toucan, you said in post 29:
“JUst last year the GOP was talking about a Constitutional Ammendment to fully fund the techers pension – note they don’t even talk about that anymore.”
I suspect the reason for that is, we cannot afford to do that. I mean if they pass an C.A. to properly fund the teacher’s pensions each year that by it self eats up most of this boggus “surplus”. Then what??
Maybe the state workers finally start to think that it just might make some sense that if there is a C.A. in place to fund their pensions as well. Why let the teachers get all the money??
At that point the state either backs out of it’s promises to them, or raises taxes big time on everyone including all these people who they claim this budget just gave a “tax cut” to….Result, a lot of unhappy campers……..
Of course by now the state retirees start to worry that their underfunded benefits plans which make the teacher and state worker issues look like small potatoes… Guess what? They want a C.A. as well…I wouldn’t blame them at all.
O.K. now that we have a Constitutional Ammendment to fully fund all these promises we have made. Is there any money left over for anything??? I don’t care how progressive you make our tax system, I simply don’t think there is.
Besides why do we really need a Constitutional Ammendment to keep our word??? Isn’t a promise from the General Assembly, and the Governor of this state good enough???…….Hmmmmm.
Toucan, I hope the GOP puts up alot of good people to run in ‘08, because with how the Dems are operating this year the GOP is going to get back some seats.
Al, I never supported the CA to fund a single liability becasue I thought that was pretty stupid but it was good election year politics for Cafero and his thugs – it didn’t work to increase their ranks but the GOP jumped on it nevertheless. We just need legislation and the political will to get onto GAAP. AND anyway, We have a CA to limit spending increases year to year, too, and it’s meaningless ever since encted – even Caferos’ so-called “no tax increae” budget proposal that gets touted here breaks the cap. I’t;s half incompetence, half arrogance and half politics – and I know that ads up to more than 1.
[quote post="577"]Toucan, I hope the GOP puts up alot of good people to run in ‘08, because with how the Dems are operating this year the GOP is going to get back some seats. [/quote]
That’s awfully naive, Bullhook. The Dems are operating as usual just as Rell and the Republicans are. People have very low expectations of CT state government. They re-elect incumbents all the time unless the incumbent is really really lazy or incompetent.
Interesting take on the transparancy of under-funded liabilities in Texas in Tuesday’s WSJ. Anyone know if CT applies GASB 45 accounting rules?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118040866421516866-search.html?KEYWORDS=texas+unfunded&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
Sorry if you can’t access the link, you may need a password and I know the copyright rules prohibit posting the article.
Hi Toucan,
I have no doubt you understand a CA for this purpose is absurd. But we have made very expensive promises and we are not funding them. We are talking about more taxes, more spending, but not paying our old bills first.
This entire show, act, whatever we chose to call, it is worse than a circus without elephants……. It’s half a lot of things…..Which adds up to not more than 1. It adds up to nothing more than pure simple old fashion BS.
Len S, GASB 45 applies to all the states and subdivisions over a certain size. Wyman has estimated the State’s liability at $21.5 Billion. I’ve heard nothing about places like Hartford, New Haven, or Waterbury.
I guess you can ignore it, but you do so at the risk of your credit rating and abilty to borrow.
I thought it was interesting that a state the size of Texas was estimated to have a total state and local liabilty of $50 Billion. Given the 21.5 billion head start from the state, I wonder what Ct’s total would be?
Thanks JM, it’s scary how these things add up, and interesting seeing the competing interests against funding these, i.e the public sector unions. If the GA ever decided to make a real effort to fund these it would shed a lot of light on just how much was being spent.
Rep. Tim O’Brien has an interesting take on the situation over at MLN today where he says regarding the spending cap CA: For example, while it is intended to limit state spending, it has, in reality, driven up state debt.
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=9076D1A89E166D0F676B7EE2CE9390C4?diaryId=7058
[quote post="577"]For example, while it is intended to limit state spending, it has, in reality, driven up state debt.[/quote]
He doesn’t really get into how though. I’m not exactly seeing the connection.
You’re right that he doesn’t get into it, LenS, but many have discussed here the tricks Rowladn, Rell and the GA have used — that deficit spending requires borrowing and borrowing leads to increased debt.
Oh, no, I don’t disagree, but I’m not sure how needing the governor’s approval to bust through the spending cap, as if, if the cap weren’t there spending would be restrained, increases the state debt.
Let’s say you need 10 million dollars for current expenses but that owuld bust through the spending cap all you have to do is borrow the 10 million and just count the interest payments – and only when it’s actually paid out – as spending according to the way the state does its accounting. That’s just one trick.
I see. Interesting.
Frightening actually, LenS. One day it will come crashing down; I just don’t know when.
The CA question Shall the constitution of the state be amended to impose a limit on state expenditures? that evrybody overwhelming vote YES to 15 years ago has never really been codified with enabling legislation that would get into the details of implementation. CFR, EDR, same sex marriage, the gas tax holiday, the state cookie, Rell’s Adrien’s Landing project, Ganim’s sports complex, UBS, RBS, Cabella’s and the funding for the YMCA day care center for Senator Nickerson in New Cannaan among other things took precedence.
LenS and Toucan,
Another way is simply not bust the cap, but not properly pay your exisiting bills ( the pensions and benefits we often discuss here for example) and spend the money that should have gone to fund those items someplace else.
You stay within the cap, hold taxes down, keeping the taxpayers heads in the sand, while at the same time increasing our debt….. Also I do think one reason these guys would not want to see a CA on these items is because we would see the actual cost. Which BTW could also be exactly why the state worker unions would not be pushing for a CA as well.
One example of this phantom spending is the proposal to borrow $2billion for the Teachers’ Pension Fund. Only the debt service will be counted as “spending” and magically the fund receives 2 Billion which should have been “spent” in prior budgets. Sort of like running up your credit card while making minimum payments and claiming your household budget is in balance. Meanwhile your net worth is sinking below the waves.
and that one (JM’s #53) was proposed by the state treasurer, Denise Nappier, who is supposed to protect our bond rating and who calls on corporations all the time for shareholder responsibility stuff yet she won’t even post the state’s bond rating at her webpage. It’s all a bunch of nonsense and you can see from the interest in the subject that the pols of all stripes don’t want to deal with it – or they are too out to lunch to know the problem is a problem
another example of bond abuse was a couple of years ago when Paul Audley, a former Fairfield First Selectman and Shays COS, ran the no-for-profit Science Museum in Bridgeport into the red;;, Rowland floated a million dollar bond and gave the proceeds to the museum for the express purpose of covering current operating expenses. Several GOP Fairfield reps (now out of office) appeared with Rowland as he ceremoniously doled out the pork to the museum. The practice was quite common and has only marginally been put in check under Rell.
Toucan (#54) Don’t forget the credit due that financial wizard Jim Amann. $2 Billion was cheap if it could those “Keep the Promise” ads off TV.
LOL and agreed, JM.
JM,
BTW, I have lost track here…. What has happened to that $2 billion idea?? I have started to notice the adds on TV again so I have to think that is still not a done deal.
I believe in last year, and this years budget, we have at least made the required payments to the teacher’s pensions but that would still leave it $7 billion or so underfunded without the addition of that $2 billion…..Has that $2 billion been bonded yet? Then of course if it has any idea how we cover the bases with the rest of the $36 billion or so of other underfunding? Are we planning to bond that as well???
)
more silliness on tax policy: State Rep. and Former GOP Chairman’s Bill Hamzy’s amendment to remove taxes on pensions, 401K’s and other retirement instruments was defeated, 104-44…. Contributions to IRA’s, 401Ks, pensions etc are/were all tax exempted in CT (that’s not true in many other states) so it only seems fair to pay the tax on withdrawals – tax income once but not twice; none of these guys from either side are financial wizards but a lot of them know how to pander to certain voting blocks rather than solve problems – like proposing honest accounting practices and responsible spending reductions.
http://ctgop.blogspot.com/2007/05/gang-that-couldnt-tax-straight.html
Toucan,
Actually maybe the idea of cutting the taxes on pensions maybe interesting. I don’t think there should be a phase out like in the property taxes, but maybe like the first say $10,000 of someone’s pension if otherwise retired and over 65 should be exempt from income taxes for example.
That might be one way to help our retired people cope with property taxes. I don’t like the idea of just fixing their property taxes like some towns have done because I want them involved in the local budget process. I fear if their property taxes are frozen we may lose an important check and balance even if we use a lean on that property.
But if some of their pension income is not taxed at least they get some relief while still staying involved. Another idea might be to give those on a pension and say over 65 maybe a higher state income tax exemption for their property taxes than those still working and under 65.
I am sure there are real helpful ways to get tax relief to those who deserve it if these guys could put the grandstanding partisan party politics, and playing up to their special interest groups behind them.
Al, there actually already is a minimum income level in CT that doesn’t get taxed; maybe it could be increased but that would mean a more progressive tax structure that just got rejected; the proposal to exempt retirement instrument withdrawls in the entirety (359) would be great for me but it’s not fundamental fairness.
You must log in to post a comment.